Welcome back everybody to meeting number 58 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 7, 2017, we have been studying Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

Today we have with us, from the Department of Industry, for any questions that might be needed, Larry Shute, deputy director general, economic research and policy analysis branch, strategic policy sector.

Before we proceed, the committee was in Washington, D.C., this week, and it was an amazing time. We met with so many relevant people. I just wanted to take a moment to recognize that the success of the trip was because of the hard work of our clerk, our analysts who are with us all the time taking hundreds of pages of notes—it blew me away how fast they were writing—and our logistics person, Suzie. Everybody at the embassy was phenomenal. They kept us on track and on time. I was very impressed, and kudos to our team and to your team. Thank you.

Having said that, we are moving on. We are on clause 1. There are no amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here not as a member of this committee but due to a motion the committee passed, which requires me to be here if I should want to put forward amendments. If you had not passed that motion, committee, I would be able to put forward amendments and speak to them at report stage. I still object to the process, but I will dive in.

First of all, I'm really overall pleased that the government is moving to improve the independence of Statistics Canada. I don't think it has gone far enough, and I wish to associate myself with a number of the comments that have been made to you by Paul Thomas and Wayne Smith. You'll note that a number of my amendments are based on their testimony.

The first amendment that we put forward is in relation to ensuring the independence of the appointment process, the fundamentals of chief statistician. We believe Bill C-36 should be amended, as Dr. Thomas recommended, to have an advisory appointment panel of three distinguished people of impeccable credentials.

You can see PV amendment 1 says that should the minister establish such an advisory appointment panel, it recommends one candidate and one alternate candidate...that the advisory panel be composed of three persons with appropriate knowledge. And I just want to explain the third subsection to committee members. It's just to ensure that we don't run into any royal recommendation issues for an amendment being put forward by a member of the committee as opposed to the government putting it in the guts of the bill. That's why we're recommending they not receive any remuneration. That's not because I don't believe distinguished people don't deserve remuneration, but I wanted to avoid any issues with the admissibility of this amendment.

As we were discussing through the witness process, what we're looking at is a Governor in Council appointment process being used across the board. It's something that our government is putting forward to improve transparency and accountability. Using open, transparent policy and gender parity is consistent with what we're doing in other appointments.

The remuneration of covering expenses, travel, is not paying people to be there but just making sure that regional expenses to come into Ottawa are covered off so we get good regional diversity on any panel we have. I wouldn't be supporting the amendment, then.

It states that Bill C-36, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 2 the following:

(4.1) The Minister shall establish a search committee to prepare a list of no more than five qualified candidates for consideration by the Governor in Council when making an appointment under subsection (1).

( 4.2) The search committee shall be composed of between 8 and 12 persons, each of whom are knowledgeable about the duties of the Chief Statistician and the mandate of Statistics Canada, and may include the following:

(a) any former Clerk of the Privy Council;

(b) any former Governor of the Bank of Canada;

(c) any former Chief Statistician; and

(d) the President of the Statistical Society of Canada.

(4.3) No member of the search committee shall receive remuneration for the performance of their duties or be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in the course of performing those duties.

This amendment comes from the former chief statistician's suggestions that we heard in testimony before this committee. It is to provide the minister not only just the recipe for naming the chief statistician, but also the process. For those reasons I'm moving this amendment and I believe it would be a value-added part of the legislation. It would also take away some of the adverse issues we've had over the last number of years related to appointments.

I see where Brian's heading with this, but this is similar to my previous comments. This is getting prescriptive in terms of how the Governor in Council process would work. I think they could follow some of these guidelines on their own, so as with amendment PV-1, I would say we should follow a consistent process across all government agencies that is transparent and accountable to Parliament.

My amendment is that Bill C-36, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 2 to line 12 on page 3 with the following:

4.1 The Chief Statistician shall determine the methods, procedures and operations that are implemented by Statistics Canada in carrying out its mandate.

4.2 The Minister may provide written recommendations for the consideration of the Chief Statistician on the statistical programs that aim to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics on all or any of the matters referred to in section 22.

From the point of view that the chief statistician has control over methods and the procedures and operation, I think that's quite clear from the bill. However, since this individual is a non-elected individual, there is a need for oversight, and that oversight should come from the minister.

If a case raises a concern over conflict, I think the procedure is very clear and transparent. The minister will prepare a report, present it within a timely manner to the Parliament, and seek approval.

At the end of the day, I believe there is a need for oversight for non-elected officials, and I don't think there's any conflict of interest with the mandates given to the chief statistician to ensure that the methods, procedures, and operations are kept independent. I think that independence has been clearly indicated.

I can see that this process is quickly becoming a farce with regard to the serious nature of this. This is an amendment that deals with the deconstruction on a political basis of the long-form census to that of a short-form census, which is the genesis of many Liberal bills that were presented in the previous Parliament and in this House of Commons, and which led to the minister's tabling of this legislation in its current context. This is to create the science behind the actual census as the imperative measure and also the necessary strength of legislation to ensure the chief statistician is not intimidated and is not prevented from using science as a basis of a census information system to make decisions.

We saw in the previous Parliament a number of different attempts by political means to undermine the census, which is critical for our statistics, not only for agriculture, but for manufacturing, social development, transit, and the environment. One of the more iconic attempts was made by the minister at that time, Tony Clement, in using the insinuation that people would go to jail if they did not fill out the long-form census. Technically, that was correct. That was the case. However, it led to months of exchanges in the House of Commons about the fact that nobody actually had gone to jail related to this. This was one of the obscure elements that was left over from the census process.

When this was moved in the House of Commons, after a long debate and long attempt to stop this from happening, it was instituted as a short-form census. We lost the mandatory long-form census. That's why we're even here today. Again, what this does is completely open the door for political interference with regard to the decision-making and the capabilities of the chief statistician with regard to Stats Canada. It intentionally undermines the whole matter that we're here for today and, more important, I think it sends a message internationally that political interference on our census, our questions, and our capabilities is the status quo and now the norm in Canadian law.

Proposed subsection 4(1) is clear about that. Proposed subsection 4(2) is of a prescriptive manner, so that the minister can provide accountability. Proposed section 4(2) is particularly important for public issues, because then they can actually get a public record. The minister has to go on record by providing a written form of the explanations as to why he or she feels that there should be interference on the census itself. That accountability would be there not only for the general public and those people who actually fill out the census themselves, but for scientists as well.

I think every Canadian should be seriously interested in proposed subsection 4(2), because as you sit down at the table with your family and decide which information you will forever disclose to the government, you at least will know that the minister, if you are uncomfortable with that, had the opportunity to express himself or herself on that, or that there was at least some type of an evaluation that went to the chief statistician at some point in time to reject that, if there was a possibility to do so. It would actually be vetted at that point in time. Political interference would be very much accountable through the process, and the minister would also have to provide the necessary information to publicly sell this.

Let's say, for example, that there are privacy issues with a question that Canadians are having to answer. There would then have to be that process in place where the minister would go to the chief statistician and ask for that type of a privacy question, and there would be a public process and an inclusion all the way to that point in time when you actually sit down later on and have to divulge information that later on is going to be provided to the public. Also, the fact of the matter is that when we're discussing census information later on, it will be disclosed in its entirety.

If this amendment at this particular point is not passed, it is clear that this government has no intent to deal adequately with this issue. It will completely undermine all the efforts of the former chief statisticians who have tried to publicly advocate for a more reasonable approach, and unfortunately we will again have wasted taxpayers' time with regard to trying to compile a proper census that returns Canada to being a leader with regard to census-taking, as opposed to a passive vessel that we will have in legislation at the end of the day.

I'd like to add to what Mr. Masse said. This is now the second bill that we've had at this committee, and we probably had four or five meetings with witnesses, and there were many experts who provided many opportunities or options for amendments. I see amendments here. I don't see any amendments from the Liberals. That's a little disappointing because there were some really fine, highly qualified experts who did appear at this committee, and not one amendment has been brought forward.

Again, it's another thick-headed approach to the whole committee process. I don't mean from my colleagues across the way. I mean from the minister and his officials, because the whole process of having witnesses here is to not waste government's time, and the time of members of Parliament and staff. The idea is to have these experts come, hear their suggestions to make the bill better, and make the bill better.

Again, this minister is “Minister knows best”. I've known that for a long time, and I think my colleagues on this side know that as well. He is absolutely unwilling to ever accept a suggestion, and that will be to his own peril. On this process with the last bill, try as we might, we didn't get anywhere. This is going to be the same way, so I wish my colleagues all the best.

I just want to add to the record that I feel this is a great balance between the independents, which is the spirit of the bill, and the best ministerial parliamentary system that we live in, so this presents a balance between those two. That's the framework: we really have to look into this bill.

I would respond to that. The fact is, this restores the current problem that we have. The unilateral movement of a minister for political or personal reasons at the expense of Canadian privacy and Canadian science is the actual end result of this.

I move that Bill C-36 in clause 3 be amended by replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 3 with the following:

Statistics Canada the statistics and information that he or she considers useful and in the public interest relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and other activities that he or she may deter-

It's an amendment that may create more inclusiveness for the chief statistician, and I'll leave it at that.